Animals that are evolving. Great read.

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they're not.

Those with shorter tusks are better suited to avoid the predators they face now and survive.
They skewed nothing any more or less than any other effective predator.

And, when there are no more elephants with tusks, they will all die because they cannot survive a drought. Just because you do not understand how evolution works does not mean everyone else is equally ignorant.

Natural selection, or unnatural selection in this case, is not survival of the fittest in the way you are trying to use it.

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educate yourself and then come back and pretend like you agreed with me all along.

The topic concerns 'evolution', not 'survival of the fittest' (a rather ambiguous phrase). Mankind has obviously become one of the factors in the environment that influences the evolution (and possible extinction) of other species but often for reasons (like Asian superstitions about the supposed viagra-like properties of rhinoceros horn) that have little to do with the natural environmental factors at play in the classical descriptions of evolution.

Even your wiki citation doesn't really seem to support your contentions.

Survival of the fittest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

"Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8]

Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness.[4]

I know what the topic concerns, I was just educating a fellow poster that he does not know as much about evolution as he thought he did.